This article originally appeared in Ripper Notes. Ripper Notes is the only American Ripper periodical available on the market, and has quickly grown into one of the more substantial offerings in the genre. For more information, view our Ripper Notes page. Our thanks to the editor of Ripper Notes for permission to reprint this article.

The Identification of Liz Stride
by Dave Yost with Stewart P. Evans

One of the more difficult aspects the
contemporary authorities had to deal with during the Berner
Street case was the proper identification of the victim. Numerous
people viewed the body, but some only saw her that night, never
knowing who she was; some only knew her as "Long Liz";
one identified her from a photo; and, another person claimed she
was her sister. Each of these people (and others) knew, or
thought they knew, the victim in one capacity or another. The
identification of Elizabeth Stride was not an easy task for the
coroner's court, and it will be interesting to see the
progression of how she was eventually and properly identified,
and who might have been the first to correctly do so.

Several people viewed the body on 30
September, which was reported the next day in the newspaper:

'The latest victims...have not as
yet been identified with certainty'. 'During the day several
women of the unfortunate class saw the body, but failed to
identify it'. 'At a late hour last night...A female known as
"One-armed Liz"...is said to have accompanied
Sergeant Thick to St. George's Mortuary, and recognised the
body as that of Annie Morris'. 'Another account says:
"The woman murdered in Berner-street has been identified
as Elizabeth Stride...She was identified by a sister living
in Holborn."' (1)
As will be seen later, the 'sister'
referred to in the latter part of this news item is Mrs. Mary
Malcolm; albeit, she never associated the name, Stride, with the
body. Ostensibly, this report combines the identifications from
two different people. So we can easily see that someone had
viewed and correctly identified the body before the start of the
inquest. (2) During the following day, the newspapers continued
to name the Berner Street victim as Elizabeth Stride, but they
did qualify this:
'Sept. 30. - A woman, supposed to be
Elizabeth Stride, but not yet identified, discovered with her
throat cut, in Berner-street, Whitechapel.' 'nor has either
of the corpses been conclusively identified.' 'The
thoroughfares are as crowded as ever, even up to a late hour,
and the same class of people as Annie Chapman and Elizabeth
Stride can be seen flitting about the dark and ill-lighted
alleys which abound in the district. As to the last-named
person - who was found at Berner-street - there is some doubt
as to her identification. It is believed that she is the
woman known as Elizabeth Stride, or more familiarly as
"Long Liz," but this identity is not definitely
established. The people who saw her in the lodging-house in
Flower and Dean-street, Commercial-road, say there is no
doubt she is Elizabeth, but relatives have not been found to
identify her.' (3)
The singular items of interest here is
that others from the lodging house identified the body as merely
Elizabeth, and that no relative had been found who could identify
her. Doubts have already been cast on Malcolm's identification.
And as we will see from the first day of the inquest, the
identification from the other lodgers was not satisfactory
either:
'Yesterday [1 Oct], at the Vestry
Hall in Cable-street, St. George-in-the-East, Mr. Wynne E.
Baxter, coroner for East Middlesex, opened an inquest on the
body of the woman who was found dead, with her throat cut, at
one o'clock on Sunday morning, in Berner-street,
Commercial-road East. At the outset of the inquiry the
deceased was described as Elizabeth Stride, but it
subsequently transpired that she had not yet been really
identified. A jury of twenty-four having been empanelled,
they proceeded to view the body at the St. George's
Mortuary.'
'The Coroner: The body has not yet
been identified? - Not yet. The Foreman: I do not quite
understand that. I thought the inquest had been opened on the
body of one Elizabeth Stride. The Coroner: That was a
mistake. Something is known of the deceased, but she has not
been fully identified. It would be better at present to
describe her as a woman unknown. She has been partially
identified. It is known where she lived. It was thought at
the beginning of the inquest that she had been identified by
a relative, but that turns out to have been a mistake.' (4)
Coroner Baxter adds to the doubts
regarding Malcolm's identification before she even testified
despite claims of being a sister of the victim. With 110 years of
20-20 hindsight regarding Elizabeth's real name, it might be
difficult for us to understand why Malcolm was still permitted to
offer her evidence at the inquest. To explain this, I defer to
Stewart Evans. "At a Coroner's inquest proper identification
of the deceased is only recognized when it is a proper LEGAL
Identification of the body, by someone who was related in some
way to the person TO the Coroner's officer and a written
statement is taken to that effect." Hence, at this early
stage in the case, since Malcolm claimed a blood relation to the
victim, the court was compelled to hear her testimony. It should
also be pointed out that Michael Kidney was only Stride's lover
(and did not testify till 3 October). Hence, Malcolm's
identification took precedence (till disproved) and was given on
2 October, which is presented here in full. (5)
Mary Malcolm was
the next witness, and she was deeply affected while giving
her evidence. In answer to the coroner she said: I live at
No. 50, Eagle-street, Red Lion-square, Holborn, and am
married. My husband, Andrew Malcolm, is a tailor. I have seen
the body at the mortuary. I saw it once on Sunday and twice
yesterday. Who is it? - It is the body of my sister,
Elizabeth Watts. You have no doubt about that? - Not the
slightest. You did have some doubts about it at one time? - I
had at first. When did you last see your sister alive? - Last
Thursday, about a quarter to seven in the evening. Where? -
She came to see me at No. 59, Red Lion-street, where I work
as a trousermaker. What did she come to you for? - To ask me
for a little assistance. I have been in the habit of
assisting her for five years. Did you give her anything? - I
gave her a shilling and a short jacket - not the jacket which
is now on the body. How long was she with you? - Only a few
moments. Did she say where she was going? - No. Where was she
living? - I do not know. I know it was somewhere in the
neighbourhood of the tailoring Jews - Commercial-road or
Commercial-street, or somewhere at the East-end. Did you
understand that she was living in lodging-houses? - Yes. Did
you know what she was doing for a livelihood? - I had my
doubts. Was she the worse for drink when she came to you on
Thursday? - No, sober. But she was sometimes the worse for
drink, was she not? - That was, unfortunately, a failing with
her. She was thirty-seven years of age last March. Had she
ever been married? - Yes. Is her husband alive? - Yes, so far
as I know. She married the son of Mr. Watts, wine and spirit
merchant, of Walcot-street, Bath. I think her husband's
Christian name was Edward. I believe he is now in America.
Did he get into trouble? - No. Why did he go away? - Because
my sister brought trouble upon him. When did she leave him? -
About eight years ago, but I cannot be quite certain as to
the time. She had two children. Her husband caught her with a
porter, and there was a quarrel. Did the husband turn her out
of doors? - No, he sent her to my poor mother, with the two
children. Where does your mother live? - She is dead. She
died in the year 1883. Where are the children now? - The girl
is dead, but the boy is at a boarding school kept by his
aunt. Was the deceased subject to epileptic fits? - Witness
(sobbing bitterly): No, she only had drunken fits. Was she
ever before the Thames police magistrate? - I believe so.
Charged with drunkenness? - Yes. Are you aware that she has
been let off on the supposition that she was subject to
epileptic fits? - I believe that is so, but she was not
subject to epileptic fits. Has she ever told you of troubles
she was in with any man? - Oh yes; she lived with a man. Do
you know his name? - I do not remember now, but I shall be
able to tell you to-morrow. I believe she lived with a man
who kept a coffee-house at Poplar. Inspector Reid: Was his
name Stride? - No; I think it was Dent, but I can find out
for certain by to-morrow. The Coroner: How long had she
ceased to live with that man? - Oh, some time. He went away
to sea, and was wrecked on the Isle of St. Paul, I believe.
How long ago should you think that was? - It must be three
years and a half; but I could tell you all about it by
to-morrow, even the name of the vessel that was wrecked. Had
the deceased lived with any man since then? - Not to my
knowledge, but there is some man who says that he has lived
with her. Have you ever heard of her getting into trouble
with this man? - No, but at times she got locked up for
drunkenness. She always brought her trouble to me. You never
heard of any one threatening her? - No; she was too good for
that. Did you ever hear her say that she was afraid of any
one? - No. Did you know of no man with whom she had
relations? - No. Inspector Reid: Did you ever visit her in
Flower and Dean-street? - No. Did you ever hear her called
"Long Liz"? - That was generally her nickname, I
believe. Have you ever heard of the name of Stride? - She
never mentioned such a name to me. I think that if she had
lived with any one of that name she would have told me. I
have heard what the man Stride has said, but I think he is
mistaken. The Coroner: How often did your sister come to you?
- Every Saturday, and I always gave her 2s. That was for her
lodgings. Did she come to you at all last Saturday? - No, I
did not see her on that day. The Thursday visit was an
unusual one, I suppose? - Yes. Did you think it strange that
she did not come on the Saturday? - I did. Had she ever
missed a Saturday before? - Not for nearly three years. What
time in the day did she usually come to you? - At four
o'clock in the afternoon. Where? - At the corner of
Chancery-lane. I was there last Saturday afternoon from
half-past three till five, but she did not turn up. Did you
think there was something the matter with her? - On the
Sunday morning when I read the accounts in the newspapers I
thought it might be my sister who had been murdered. I had a
presentiment that that was so. I came down to Whitechapel and
was directed to the mortuary; but when I saw the body I did
not recognise it as that of my sister. How was that? Why did
you not recognise it in the first instance? - I do not know,
except that I saw it in the gaslight, between nine and ten at
night. But I recognised her the next day. Did you not have
some special presentiment that this was your sister? - Yes.
Tell the jury what it was? - I was in bed, and about twenty
minutes past one on Sunday morning I felt a pressure on my
breast and heard three distinct kisses. It was that which
made me afterwards suspect that the woman who had been
murdered was my sister. The Coroner (to the jury): The only
reason why I allow this evidence is that the witness has been
doubtful about her identification. (To witness) Did your
sister ever break a limb? - No. Never? - Not to my knowledge.
The Foreman: Had she any special marks upon her? - Yes, on
her right leg there was a small black mark. The Coroner: Have
you seen that mark on the deceased? - Yes. When did you see
it? - Yesterday morning. But when, before death, did you see
it on your sister? - Oh not for years. It was the size of a
pea. I have not seen it for 20 years. Did you mention the
mark before you saw the body? - I said that I could recognise
my sister by this particular mark. What was the mark? - It
was from the bite of an adder. One day, when children, we
were rolling down a hill together, and we came across an
adder. The thing bit me first and my sister afterwards. I
have still the mark of the bite on my left hand. The Coroner
(examining the mark): Oh, that is only a scar. Are you sure
that your sister, in her youth, never broke a limb? - Not to
my knowledge. Has your husband seen your sister? - Yes. Has
he been to the mortuary? - No; he will not go. Have you any
brothers and sisters alive? - Yes, a brother and a sister,
but they have not seen her for years. My brother might
recognise her. He lives near Bath. My sister resides at
Folkestone. My sister (the deceased) had a hollowness in her
right foot, caused by some sort of accident. It was the
absence of this hollowness that made me doubt whether the
deceased was really my sister. Perhaps it passed away in
death. But the adder mark removed all doubt. Did you
recognise the clothes of the deceased at all? - No. (Bursting
into tears). Indeed, I have had trouble with her. On one
occasion she left a naked baby outside my door. One of her
babies? - One of her own. One of the two children by her
husband? - No, another one; one she had by a policeman, I
believe. She left it with me, and I had to keep it until she
fetched it away. Inspector Reid: Is that child alive, do you
know? - I believe it died in Bath. The Coroner: It is
important that the evidence of identification should be
unmistakable, and I think that the witness should go to the
same spot in Chancery-lane on Saturday next, in order to see
if her sister comes. Witness: I have no doubt. The Coroner:
Still, it is better that the matter should be tested. Witness
(in reply to the jury): I did not think it strange that my
sister came to me last Thursday instead of the Saturday,
because she has done it before. But on previous occasions she
has come on the Saturday as well. When she came last Thursday
she asked me for money, stating that she had not enough to
pay for her lodgings, and I said, "Elizabeth, you are a
pest to me." The Coroner: Has your sister been in
prison? - Witness: Yes. Has she never been in prison on a
Saturday? - No; she has only been locked up for the night.
Never more? - No; she has been fined. A Juror: You say that
before when she has come on the Thursday she has also come on
the Saturday as well? - Always. The Coroner: So that the
Thursday was an extra. You are quite confident now about the
identity? - I have not a shadow of doubt. (6)
It is not difficult to see why there are
doubts about Malcolm's testimony. She had to view the body three
times. And, she eventually identified the body from a mark on the
leg, instead of facial features, despite her claims that she saw
her 'Last Thursday, about a quarter to seven in the evening,' or
that they met every week for 'nearly three years'. Plus, she
seemed to be guessing at quite a bit and despite offers to obtain
further information, this was, at least, not publicly given in
court if at all, adding to the idea that the court did not
"trust" her testimony, but was merely compelled to hear
it. It is also easy to see why there was confusion between the
victim and Malcolm's real sister given Malcolm's answers to
Coroner Baxter's questions: Husband and two children, living with
a man (not her husband) for about the past three years, nickname
of 'Long Liz'. And of course the first name, Elizabeth. All very
similar to Elizabeth Stride, as will be seen later in Coroner
Baxter's summation on 23 October.

From the inquest of 3 October, we learn
the following:
Elizabeth Tanner:
'I am deputy of the common lodging-house, No. 32, Flower and
Dean-street, and am a widow. I have seen the body of the
deceased at St. George's Mortuary, and recognise it as that
of a woman who has lodged in our house, on and off, for the
last six years.' 'She was known by the nick-name of
"Long Liz."' 'Do you know her right name? - No.'
'Did you see her again? - No, until I saw the body in the
mortuary to-day.' 'By the jury: I do not know of any one else
of the name of Long Liz. I never heard of her sister allowing
her any money, nor have I heard the name of Stride mentioned
in connection with her.'
Catherine Lane: 'I
live in Flower and Dean-street, and am a charwoman and
married. My husband is a dock labourer, and is living with me
at the lodging house of which the last witness is deputy. I
have been there since last February. I have seen the body of
the deceased at the mortuary.' 'The Coroner: Did you
recognise it? - Yes, as the body of Long Liz, who lived
occasionally in the lodging-house.' 'I first saw the body in
the mortuary on Sunday afternoon, and I recognised it then.'
'I am satisfied the deceased is the same woman.'
Charles Preston: 'I
live at No. 32, Flower and Dean-street, and I am a barber. I
have been lodging at my present address for eighteen months,
and have seen the deceased there. I saw the body on Sunday
last, and am quite sure it is that of Long Liz.' 'She always
gave me to understand that her name was Elizabeth Stride.'
Michael Kidney: 'I
have seen the body of the deceased at the mortuary.' 'The
Coroner: Is it the woman you have been living with? - Yes.'
'You have no doubt about it? - No doubt whatever.' 'What was
her name? - Elizabeth Stride.' 'How long have you known her?
- About three years.' 'How long has she been living with you?
- Nearly all that time.' 'A Juror: Do you know of any sister
who gave money to the deceased? - No. On Monday I saw Mrs.
Malcolm, who said the deceased was her sister. She is very
like the deceased.'
Mr. George Baxter Phillips:
'On Oct. 1, at three p.m., at St. George's Mortuary, present
Dr. Blackwell and for part of the time Dr. Reigate and Dr.
Blackwell's assistant' 'By a Juror: I did notice a black mark
on one of the legs of the deceased, but could not say that it
was due to an adder bite.' (7)
Even though some people who testified
associated the name Elizabeth Stride with the victim, including
Michael Kidney, this was still unsatisfactory for the coroner's
court, as pointed out by Stewart Evans. Despite the very doubtful
testimony given by Malcolm, her evidence and relationship with
the victim had yet to be disproved.

On 4 October, Mathew Packer claimed to
have identified the body as a woman to whom he might have sold
grapes at midnight that morning, but he was unaware of any name
associated with the victim except perhaps from what he might have
read in the papers. (8)

When the inquest resumed on 5 October,
we see further glimpses as to who the deceased might have been,
but we really learn a great deal about Elizabeth from Mr. Ollsen
whose testimony is given here in full.
Mr. Sven Ollsen: 'I
live at No. 23, Prince's-square, St. George's-in-the-East,
and am clerk of the Swedish Church there. I have examined the
body of the deceased at the mortuary. I have seen her
before.' The Coroner: Often? - Yes. For how many years? -
Seventeen. Was she a Swede? - Yes. What was her name? - Her
name was Elizabeth Stride, and she was the wife of John
Thomas Stride, carpenter. Her maiden name was Elizabeth
Gustafdotter. She was born at Torlands, near Gothenburg, on
Nov. 27, 1843. How do you get these facts? - From the
register at our church. Do you keep a register of all the
members of your church? - Of course. We register those who
come into this country bringing a certificate and desiring to
be registered. When was she registered? - Her registry is
dated July 10, 1866, and she was then registered as an
unmarried woman. Was she married at your church? - No. Then
how do you know she was the wife of John Thomas Stride? - In
the registry I find a memorandum, undated, in the handwriting
of the Rev. Mr, Palmayer, in Swedish, that she was married to
an Englishman named John Thos. Stride. This registry is a new
one, and copied from an older book. I have seen the original,
and it was written by Mr. Frost, our pastor, until two years
ago. I know the Swedish hymn book produced, dated 1821. I
gave it to the deceased. When? - Last winter, I think. Do you
know when she was married to Stride? - I think it was in
1869. Do you know when he died? - No. She told me about the
time the Princess Alice went down that her husband was
drowned in that vessel. Was she in good circumstances then? -
She was very poor. Then she would have been glad of any
assistance? - Yes. Did you give her some? - I did about that
time. Do you remember that there was a subscription raised
for the relatives of the sufferers by the Princess Alice? -
No. I can tell you that there was, and I can tell you another
thing - that no person of the name of Stride made any
application. If her story had been true, don't you think she
would have applied? - I do not know. Have you any schools
connected with the Swedish Church? - No, not in London. Did
not ever hear that this woman had any children? - I do not
remember. Did you ever see her husband? - No. Did your church
ever assist her before her husband died? - Yes, I think so;
just before he died. Where has she been living lately? - I
have nothing to show. Two years ago she gave her address as
Devonshire-street, Commercial-road. Did she then explain what
she was doing? - She stated that she was doing a little work
in sewing. Could she speak English well? - Pretty well. Do
you know when she came to England? - I believe a little
before the register was made, in 1866.
William Marshall:
'I reside at No. 64, Berner-street, and am a labourer at an
indigo warehouse. I have seen the body at the mortuary. I saw
the deceased on Saturday night last.' 'Where? - In our
street, three doors from my house, about a quarter to twelve
o'clock. She was on the pavement, opposite No. 58, between
Fairclough-street and Boyd-street.' 'How do you know this was
the same woman? - I recognise her both by her face and dress.
She did not then have a flower in her breast.'
James Brown: 'I
live in Fairclough-street, and am a dock labourer. I have
seen the body in the mortuary. I did not know deceased, but I
saw her about a quarter to one on Sunday morning last.' 'The
Coroner: Where were you? - I was going from my house to the
chandler's shop at the corner of the Berner-street and
Fairclough-street, to get some supper. I stayed there three
or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man
and woman standing at the corner of the Board School. I was
in the road just by the kerb, and they were near the wall.'
'Did you see enough to make you certain that the deceased was
the woman? - I am almost certain.'
William Smith, 452
H Division: 'On Saturday last I went on duty at ten p.m. My
beat was past Berner-street, and would take me twenty-five
minutes or half an hour to go round. I was in Berner-street
about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock,
and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road
corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock.' 'The Coroner:
Had you noticed any man or woman in Berner-street when you
were there before? - Yes, talking together.' 'Was the woman
anything like the deceased? - Yes. I saw her face, and I
think the body at the mortuary is that of the same woman.'
'Are you certain? - I feel certain. She stood on the pavement
a few yards from where the body was found, but on the
opposite side of the street.' (9)
From this day of this inquest, we learn
a great deal about Elizabeth Stride and her life. Though only one
person gave evidence as to her real name, this alone would be
sufficient to corroborate the previous identifications. And while
all involved most likely and readily accepted this evidence,
Malcolm's information still had to be refuted outright.

It should also be mentioned that Dr.
Thomas Barnardo claimed to have seen Elizabeth the Wednesday (26
Sep) before her death in the lodging house kitchen, later
identifying her as one of the women he saw. He had written a
letter (dated 6 Oct) to the Times (posted 9 Oct) regarding this.
From what information we have, it seems that Elizabeth did not
merely hand out her full name any time the subject came up, so it
is very doubtful that Barnardo would have known it. And
currently, there seems to be no indication as to when he viewed
the body in the mortuary, but it would had to have been prior 6
October, which was when Elizabeth was buried at East London
Cemetery Co. Ltd., Plaistow, London, E13. Grave 15509, square 37.
(10)

When the inquest resumed for the last
time on 23 October, we are provided with one more testimony
identifying the victim as Elizabeth Stride, but more importantly,
we are given sufficient evidence to properly refute Malcom's
information:
PC Stride:
Identified the body from mortuary photographs on 1 October as
the woman who married his uncle, John Thomas Stride, in 1872
or 1873. His uncle was a carpenter, and the last time witness
saw him he was living in the East India Dock-road, Poplar.
Elizabeth Stokes:
5, Charles-street, Tottenham, said, - My husband's name is
Joseph Stokes, and he is a brickmaker. My first husband's
name was Watts, a wine merchant of Bath. Mrs. Mary Malcolm,
of 15, Eagle-street, Red Lion-square, Holborn, is my sister.
I have received an anonymous letter from Shepton Mallet,
saying my first husband is alive. I want to clear my
character. My sister I have not seen for years. She has given
me a dreadful character. Her evidence is all false. I have
five brothers and sisters. A juryman. - Perhaps she refers to
another sister. Inspector Reid. - She identified the deceased
person as her sister, and said she had a crippled foot. This
witness has a crippled foot. Witness. - This has put me to a
dreadful trouble and trial. I have only a poor crippled
husband, who is now outside. It is a shame my sister should
say what she has said about me, and that the innocent should
suffer for the guilty. The Coroner. - Is Mrs. Malcolm here?
Inspector Reid. - No, Sir. (11)
At this point, there was no doubt as to
the falsehood of Malcolm's testimony. The victim was not her
sister. Hence, Maolcolm's claims, no matter how sincere she may
have been in making them, were useless to the court in
identifying the victim since she was not a blood relation; and,
there was more than sufficient information showing differently.
The court then turned to the other evidence offered which
provided the complete name, and Coroner Baxter's summation of the
case puts into perspective the difficulties and confusions that
were created:
'The first difficulty which
presented itself was the identification of the deceased. That
was not an unimportant matter. Their trouble was principally
occasioned by Mrs Malcolm, who after some hesitation, and
after having had two further opportunities of viewing again
the body, positively swore that the deceased was her sister -
Mrs Elizabeth Watts of Bath. It had since been clearly proved
that she was mistaken, notwithstanding the visions which were
simultaneously vouchsafed at the hour of the death to her and
her husband. If her evidence was correct, there were points
of resemblance between the deceased and Elizabeth Watts which
almost reminded one of the Comedy of Errors. Both had been
courted by policemen; they both bore the same Christian name,
and were of the same age; both lived with sailors; both at
one time kept coffee-houses at Poplar; both were nick-named
"Long Liz"; both were said to have had children in
charge of the husbands' friends; both were given to drink;
both had been charged at the Thames Police-court; both had
escaped punishment on the ground that they were subject to
epileptic fits, although the friends of both were certain
that this was a fraud; both had lost their front teeth, and
both had been leading very questionable lives...' " (12)
It is interesting to point out Coroner
Baxter's remarks regarding the difficulties in properly
identifying the Berner Street victim with respect to some other
views on the matter:
"Her inquest was inevitably
protracted, as satisfactory evidence as to her identity was
delayed by the need to investigate her own extraordinary lies
about her past (see under Princess Alice vessel) and Mrs
Malcolm's erroneous identification of her with Mrs Elizabeth
Stokes. The matter was only satisfactorily settled by the
appearance of Mrs Stokes herself, and the further
identification made by Police Constable Walter Stride."
(13)
Based on the foregoing examination, it
would seem that Elizabeth's lies about her family's involvement
in the Princess Alice Disaster had little bearing on her proper
identification. Even though the appearance of Mrs. Stokes did
rightfully refute Malcolm's information, freeing the court to
legally pursue the other identification of the body (i.e.
Elizabeth Stride), the inquest was not necessarily delayed
because of this. Additionally, PC Stride's testimony on the last
day of the inquest merely corroborated what several other
witnesses had stated. And it should be pointed out that his
relationship to the deceased was by a marriage that had broke
down six years earlier, and he himself had not seen Elizabeth for
approximately fifteen years.

Of all those who viewed the body, we
have only a few who seemed to have truly known the deceased:
Charles Preston viewed the body that Sunday, identifying her as
Elizabeth Stride. (Interestingly enough, he seemed to be the only
lodger, who knew Elizabeth by her full and correct name, yet he
wouldn't let her borrow a clothes brush.) PC Stride (via a
photograph) identified the body as that of the woman who married
his uncle. Mr. Ollsen corroborated this marriage, also naming the
deceased Elizabeth Stride, but he did not view the body till the
Tuesday morning (2 Oct). We also heard from Michael Kidney who
lived with the deceased for the previous three years, also
stating she was named Elizabeth Stride. From these four people
the court knew who the Berner Street victim was, especially since
Mrs. Malcolm's evidence was suspect from the start and refuted
when her actual sister appeared at the inquest.

Yet, it still remains to be seen who
first identified the body as Elizabeth Stride. Per Donald
Rumbelow, 'He [Kidney] didn't see her [Elizabeth] again until he
identified her body in the mortuary. Afterwards he had gone away
and got drunk. Later that night he had staggered into Leman
Street police station...' Kidney was at the Leman Street Police
Station on Monday, 1 October. While Rumbelow does not provide a
source for Kidney viewing the body, it does mean that Kidney
learned of Elizabeth's death from the papers that had already
been calling the Berner Street victim, Elizabeth Stride. Hence,
Michael Kidney did not learn who the Berner Street victim was
till he read it in the paper, or heard the name on the street.
The papers had correctly named the victim as Elizabeth Stride as
early as their 1 October printings, but they had confused and/or
combined two sets of viewing: Preston's and Malcolm's. So it
would seem from what we currently know that Charles Preston was
the first to correctly identify the Berner Street victim as
Elizabeth Stride. (14)